Judicial System: Consultation

Lord Stone of Blackheath: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consultation they will undertake on (a) the creation of a supreme court, (b) the establishment of a judicial appointments commission, (c) the future of the rank of Queen's Counsel, and (d) court dress.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Government announced on 12 June a substantial package of constitutional reforms. That package includes the creation of a new supreme court to replace the existing Appellate Committee of the House of Lords; and the establishment of a new judicial appointments commission, on a statutory basis, to recommend candidates for appointment as judges.
	These are issues of profound constitutional importance, and the Government will consult widely on how best to take each forward. We intend to publish on 14 July a consultation paper on a judicial appointments commission and a new supreme court. The consultation period will run until November 2003, after which the Government will develop policy proposals, taking into account responses to consultation. At the conclusion of that process, legislation on these issues will be introduced at the earliest opportunity.
	Lord Irvine of Lairg announced to the Lord Chancellor's Department Select Committee his intention to consult on the future of the rank of Queen's Counsel. We therefore intend to publish a consultation paper on this issue, also on 14 July, with consultation closing in November. We will announce the Government's next steps early in 2004.
	A consultation paper on court working dress was published on 8 May, with responses sought by 14 August. The Government will be discussing the outcome of the consultation, and how best to take the matter forward, with the senior judiciary.

Northern Ireland: "Period of Transition"

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Answer by the Prime Minister on 30 April (Official Report, Commons, col. 298), what was meant by a "period of transition" for terrorists in Northern Ireland to change to democracy; who set the period; whether it has ended; and, if not, when it will end.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Prime Minister explained on 30 April that some had understood there might be such a period; but that it must now be over and, as he had explained in his speech in Belfast in October last year, if the political system in Northern Ireland was to operate effectively, there must be confidence that parties were committed to exclusively peaceful means.

Questions for Written Answer

Lord Jopling: asked the Leader of the House:
	Whether he has noted that on 11 June there were 82 Questions for Written Answer which had lain on the Order Paper for over three weeks without an Answer, while two weeks remains the target period within which Answers should be provided; how many Questions there were awaiting Answer on 11 June which had lain between two and three weeks; and whether he will recommend the establishment of a Select Committee to inquire into these failures, with a power to call for Ministers, officials and others as well as papers.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: As at 11 June there were 104 unanswered Questions for Written Answer over the 14-day deadline. The majority of these Questions have now been answered.
	All Government departments recognise the importance of ensuring that all Parliamentary Questions are answered accurately and promptly. However, in order to provide a full and accurate reply, it is sometimes necessary to await the outcome of consultation and discussions.
	The establishment of a Select Committee is of course a matter for the Liaison Committee and the House. I have no plans to recommend such a committee.

Intelligence and Security Committee: Annual Report

Lord Elder: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they expect to lay before Parliament their response to the Intelligence and Security Committee's annual report for 2002–03.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Prime Minister has today laid the government response to the Intelligence and Security Committee's report before Parliament.

Mozambique: Customs Service

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Mozambique customs service is terminating its contract with the Crown Agents; whether the management objectives have been met; and what has been the effect on customs revenue.

Baroness Amos: The current contract between the Government of Mozambique and the Crown Agents in the customs service is due to end on 30 June 2003. The customs reform process is an ongoing part of the Government of Mozambique's revenue administration reform. The Government of Mozambique have expressed satisfaction with the Crown Agents' performance. However, the Government of Mozambique and DfID will jointly undertake a formal end-of-contract performance review in due course. The effect on customs revenue has been a net increase in revenue of about 125 per cent.

Iraq: Equipment Used by British Forces

Lord Hardy of Wath: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What new weapons, weapon systems or items of significant equipment were used in Iraq in recent hostilities; and what assessment has been made of their effectiveness.

Lord Bach: In preparation for recent operations in Iraq a number of extant equipment programmes were accelerated and brought into service. These included the stand-off Storm Shadow precision missile, new tactical radiation monitoring equipment and temporary deployable accommodation. Other new equipment was acquired for the particular circumstances of the operation. Examples include the new obstacle breaching line explosives system, enhanced medical diagnostic and monitoring equipment, a vehicle decontamination system and the blue force tracking situational awareness system that comprised one part of UK ground forces' combat identification capability. In addition to these, the capability provided by some extant equipment, such as the personal role radio and other secure communications systems, was substantially enhanced; and some other systems, including the Maverick anti-armour guided missile, were utilised operationally for the first time.
	Post operational reporting will provide analysis and an assessment of equipment deployed on operations in Iraq. It would, therefore, be premature for me to provide a detailed assessment of the performance of new equipment and any effect of operational use at this stage.

EU Expansion: Information about Poland

Lord Inglewood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they consider the statement in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office poster "Did you know? The E.U. is expanding." that "Poland has its fair share of famous people" to be patronising to the people of Poland.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The posters are aimed at school age children, are phrased in clear and simple English, and seek to promote a greater understanding of our new partners in the EU. The language on Poland was drafted in consultation with the Polish Cultural Institute. It makes quite clear the tremendous contribution that the people of Poland have made to Europe's arts and sciences over the centuries.

Trans-border Crime: South-East European Cooperative Initiative

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are supporting, both financially and by sharing information and other practical help, the South-East Europe Co-operation Initiative for combating trans-border crime; and how they assess its potential for dealing with illicit small arms and trafficking in persons.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The UK does not currently provide any funding to the South-East European Cooperative Initiative (SECI), which is still not operational. The UK has, however, encouraged SECI to focus on a limited number of deliverables, in line with Europol standards. These are essential for SECI effectively to fulfil its principal function, namely the exchange of intelligence information between participants. Individual countries decide whether to mount operations based on this information. In the meantime, the UK retains an observer in Bucharest to assess SECI's capacity and the UK will review its position if and when significant progress can be demonstrated.

Trans-border Crime: Independent Republics of the Caucasus

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, following the seminar in Yerevan of November 2002, they will propose to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe the establishment of a centre for co-operation and joint action by the independent republics of the Caucasus, similar to the South-East Europe Co-operation Initiative for combating trans-border crime.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We do not plan to make such proposals to the OSCE. While there is no progress towards a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute, the chances of increasing joint co-operation in the region are minimal. But we continue to seek ways to support the OSCE's project work in combating trans-border crime in the region.

Small Arms and Light Weapons: Illicit Trade

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What practical and detailed issues they will be raising at the biennial review of the United Nations programme of action on illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in July 2003.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The format of the biennial meeting (New York, 7–11 July) does not allow for states to make substantive proposals. But it will be a useful opportunity to take work forward with partners within the framework of the UN. The UK is therefore planning, in partnership with other interested states, to hold a side meeting on 8 July to discuss options for strengthening consensus on the need for regulation of small arms transfers. This is a sensitive issue for many states. Continuing this work within the framework of the UN is particularly important, and the UK is committed to the process. The aim of the side meeting is to gather support for launching a regionally based process to share more widely understanding on national implementation of export controls of small arms, with the aim of reporting back findings at the 2005 biennial meeting. We also hope the July 2003 biennial meeting will focus on the linkages between small arms proliferation and poverty and issues around disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) in general.
	Weapons collection and destruction is a central part of the UK strategy on small arms and light weapons. We have allocated £7.5 million over three years to the United Nations Development Programme for a global programme on weapons collection, management and destruction. The UK is aware of the wide availability of weapons in Iraq and regards this as a serious and urgent issue. We are in discussion bilaterally and with UN agencies on how best to address this issue.

Middle East: Construction of Fences

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What view the Quartet takes on the wall and fences being erected by the Government of Israel, and in particular the cutting off of the town of Qalqilya from both Israel and the West Bank; and what representations the Quartet is making.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Quartet (USA, EU, UN and Russia) has not expressed a collective public view on the construction of the fence, but its roadmap calls on the Government of Israel to take no actions undermining trust, including the confiscation and/or demolition of Palestinian property.
	European Union leaders urged Israel to end further land confiscation for the construction of the security fence when they met in Copenhagen in December 2002.
	We are not aware of Quartet plans to make representations on the security fence or the situation in Qalqilya. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary conveyed the UK's concerns to the Israeli Foreign Minister during his visit of 15 May. We have also made representations through our Embassy in Tel Aviv.

Sierra Leone: Diamonds

Lord Stone of Blackheath: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there has been a cessation of the diamond embargo against Sierra Leone.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: With the support of Her Majesty's Government, the UN Security Council has allowed the remaining sanctions under UNSCR 1446(2002) against the import of uncertified rough diamonds from Sierra Leone to terminate with effect from 5 June 2003. The resolution extended the embargo against the direct or indirect import of rough diamonds without a certificate of origin, controlled by the Government of Sierra Leone. This is in recognition of the peace in Sierra Leone and the efforts that the Government of Sierra Leone have made towards securing their diamond-mining areas and in pursuing a successful diamond policy. Sierra Leone is now a participant of the Kimberley process.

Justice and Home Affairs Council, 5 and 6 June

Lord Carter: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What the outcome was of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held on 5 and 6 June and what their stance was on the issues discussed, including their voting record.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The United Kingdom was represented at the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council in Luxembourg on 5 and 6 June by my noble friend Lord Filkin and me.
	The A points were approved as in document PTS A 32 and ADD 1 (9941/03) (a copy has been placed in the Library) with the exception of item 21.
	The Council concluded a political agreement on the Council directive concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents.
	One member state retained scrutiny reservations on the directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection. The presidency remitted the directive to COREPER with a view to securing agreement at the Thessaloniki European Council in order to meet the deadline set at the Seville Council.
	Member states lifted the majority of their reservations on the first two chapters of the amended proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status. Five member states, including the United Kingdom, also presented a joint declaration calling for a minimum common EU list of safe countries of origin to be included in the text.
	The Commission presented its communications on illegal immigration, asylum systems and integration and employment. Lord Filkin welcomed the communications noting that there was a need to address the crisis in Europe and across the world in the international protection system. Lord Filkin also said that the Council should consider the priorities for the Thessaloniki European Council. In particular, there was a need to integrate asylum and migration issues into the EU's relations with third countries; set targets for the conclusion of readmission agreements; and give a commitment to burden sharing. He also called for a European returns fund; extra Community funding for JHA activity post-2006; and agreement to take forward pilot projects to test out new approaches to international protection with interested member states and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).
	The Council subsequently agreed conclusions on the effective management of the EU's external borders. A discussion on conclusions on a common policy on illegal immigration, external borders, the return of illegal immigrants and co-operation with third countries focused on the need for a financial mechanism to assist Community return policy, which the United Kingdom supported.
	The Council agreed conclusions on the functions of SIS and the SIS II architecture and the Council decision concerning the signature of agreements between EU-US on extradition and mutual legal assistance. On the latter, the majority of member states, including the United Kingdom, entered declarations under Article 24(5) TEU to the effect that they would not be bound by the agreements until they had met constitutional, or in the case of the United Kingdom, legislative requirements.
	The Council resolved the outstanding issues of principle on the regulation concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility on the basis of a presidency compromise package. The regulation was remitted to experts to address the final technical questions.
	The Council held an orientation debate on the regulation creating a European enforcement order for uncontested civil claims during which Ministers discussed the scope of the regulation, minimum standards for the service of claims, appeal provisions and the omission of a public policy-based right to refuse enforcement. Baroness Scotland welcomed the proposed regulation, emphasising the benefits that better debt recovery would bring to businesses trading cross-Europe. She supported the presidency's proposals, in particular the inclusion within the minimum standards of postal service where that method was permitted in the state in which both parties resided and where the possibility of setting aside the judgment continued until enforcement commenced. The issue of whether to exclude consumer debts from the scope of the regulation and the matter of claims which attracted state immunity protection were remitted to the working group.
	Member states indicated that they could accept the proposal that confiscation orders be enforced in the absence of dual criminality for a list of offences specified in Article 5 of the framework decision on the execution in the EU of confiscation orders. However, member states linked the enforcement of extended confiscation orders as defined in Article 2 to grounds for refusal set out in Article 7.
	The presidency presented a progress report on the framework decision on the application of the principle of ne bis in idem and on negotiations with Switzerland to participate in the Schengen aquis and asylum matters.
	The Commission gave a detailed summary of the latest version of the JHA scoreboard noting in particular that some of the deadlines set at the Seville European Council were not going to be met.
	Under Any Other Business, the presidency presented its ideas for the creation of common data protection rules for the third pillar.
	The mixed committee with Norway and Iceland met at ministerial level in the margins of the Council. It approved conclusions endorsing the creation of the Visa Information System; conclusions on the functions of SIS and SIS II architecture; the directive on assistance in transit for the purposes of removal by air; conclusions on the Schengen evaluation of Spain; a report following up the Schengen evaluation of France; conclusions on increasing the efficiency of the Schengen evaluation mechanism; and the regulation on the issuing of visas for members of the Olympic family for the 2004 Games. The mixed committee also took note of the presidency's report on the implementation of programmes, ad hoc centres, pilot projects and joint operations for the effective management of the external border.

Civil Contingencies: Draft Bill

Lord Elder: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the draft Civil Contingencies Bill.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Minister for the Cabinet Office, Douglas Alexander, has today published a draft Civil Contingencies Bill (Cmd 5843) which, with the accompanying non-legislative measures, will deliver a single framework for civil protection in the United Kingdom.
	The Bill will codify existing best practice at the local level, ensuring consistency and enhancing performance and communication; it will deliver a new regional civil protection tier to enhance existing regional resilience; and it will modernise the legislative tools available to Government to deal with the most serious emergencies, providing greater flexibility, proportionality, deployability and robustness.
	A Parliamentary Joint Committee formed from Members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords will undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposals.
	Copies of the draft Civil Contingencies Bill, Explanatory Notes, the Regulatory Impact Assessment and the consultation document Draft Civil Contingencies Bill are available in the Libraries of both Houses and can also be viewed on the UK Resilience website (www.ukresilience.info). Interested parties are invited to submit their comments and views on the content of the draft Bill.
	The Minister for the Cabinet Office has also today published an interim revision of Dealing with Disaster, which contains core guidance to emergency planners and local responders. This latest version takes account of changes in structures, practice and legislation, pending a further, comprehensive revision once the Civil Contingencies Bill is brought into force.
	This is also available in the Libraries of both Houses and can be viewed at www.ukresilience.info.

Ian Huntley: Self-harm

Lord Hoyle: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What measures have been implemented following recent events at HMP Woodhill.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The report of the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the act of self-harm by Ian Huntley was received by the Prison Service on Friday 13 June. Paul Goggins received that report together with the Prison Service's response to it in his office on Tuesday 17 June. While the investigation report itself is, for a variety of reasons, confidential, we provided a statement because we wanted Parliament and the public to have confidence that this matter has been properly dealt with. We have been mindful of the Attorney General's guidance concerning the publication of matters relating to Mr Huntley prior to his trial, to matters of security and medical confidentiality.
	The report highlights a number of serious systems failures. We can confirm that these have already been addressed and corrected. In essence the systems for managing Ian Huntley concentrated more on protecting him from other prisoners than on the risk of self-harm. The Prison Service should have given equal importance to both risks. The report also highlighted the risks in managing a single prisoner in special conditions for a protracted period. The arrangements for briefing staff supervising Mr Huntley and the arrangements for overall management oversight were not robust enough to combat complacency and conditioning. Finally, the procedures for dispensing medication to Mr Huntley fell well short of acceptable standards and failed to take into account the risk of self-harm.
	The report acknowledges the complex multi-functional role of Woodhill Prison and the challenge this poses to managers and staff but we have made it clear that the safe custody of Mr Huntley is an absolute priority for the Prison Service and that revised arrangements for his supervision must reflect this. The report concludes that lines of accountability for the management of Mr Huntley were unclear. We have made it clear to the Director General that there must be clear lines of accountability in the future so that all staff are fully aware of their responsibilities and that management oversight is to a consistently high standard. The report did not recommend that any disciplinary action be taken against individual officers.
	The investigating officer concluded that:
	Any failures were corporate failures and not the failure of any one individual.
	The management arrangements for Mr Huntley lacked clarity, were not communicated well and failed to respond effectively to the developing needs of the circumstances.
	The day-to-day management of this situation had effectively become the responsibility of one manager who had a wide range of other responsibilities. This was not appropriate.
	There were failings in communication and input from senior managers.
	There were deficiencies in searching practices, which were predictable and did not include the items stored outside of his cell.
	The management of staff deployed to carry out the task of supervision of Mr Huntley did not fully recognise the full risks inherent in working long shifts without relief.
	Information was not systematically reviewed. There was a time lapse in some cases between information being submitted and consideration being given to that information.
	Staff must have the appropriate resources, instructions and support to enable them to remain vigilant at all times they are carrying out this duty.
	The recommendations of the investigating officer include:
	One operational manager should have responsibility for the care of Mr Huntley.
	A clear and effective structure for the management of Mr Huntley must be established and published to staff.
	A multi-disciplinary team should review the current operational instruction. An amended instruction must be authorised by the Governor.
	The amended operational instruction must be communicated to all staff who have contact with Mr Huntley. The implications of the new instruction should be communicated to Mr Huntley.
	A multi-disciplinary team should meet weekly to review the management of Mr Huntley.
	Staff still in their probationary period should not supervise Mr Huntley.
	All recommendations made by Prison Service Safer Custody Group should be actioned.
	The searching strategy should be reviewed. There should be management oversight of the reviewed strategy.
	A review of security intelligence systems, including use of CCTV, at Woodhill should be carried out by an independent person.
	All recommendations made in relation to medical issues should be implemented.
	There should be an audit of prescribing practice after three months.
	Staff should be reminded of their personal responsibilities in relation to the supervision of prisoners.
	The findings of the significant event audit should be circulated to health-care staff who should be engaged in resolving issues raised and implementing change.
	There should be an audit of compliance with the administration of medication policy after three months.
	There must be a specific integrated care plan for Mr Huntley, which should record all issues relating to him. This document should be reviewed daily and submitted to the governor weekly.
	The Prison Service has advised us that all the recommendations in the report have been accepted and have been implemented with effect from Monday 16 June. Revised and comprehensive operational instructions have been put in place that will be overseen by a clearly identified manager at all times who will report direct to the Governor. The instructions are underpinned by an integrated care plan in which comprehensive written details of all events concerning Mr Huntley will be recorded. This plan will be reviewed daily. Medical procedures have also been reviewed in consultation with the appropriate primary care trust and a multi-disciplinary team will supervise Mr Huntley's healthcare. The effectiveness of these revised procedures will be formally reviewed each week by the accountable manager together with those other managers who have designated responsibilities laid down in the operational instructions. The governer will supervise their work. The Prison Service will also make arrangements for regular audits of the operational instructions to be carried out independently of the establishment to provide assurance that full compliance with the instructions is being maintained. Audit reports will be sent to the Deputy Director General for his personal attention.
	We have made it clear to the Director General that the conclusions of the report describe a completely unacceptable situation, that the lessons to be learned must be applied immediately and that the highest standards of supervision must be sustained from now on.

Yarl's Wood: Events of 14 and 15 February

Baroness Golding: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made into the investigation of events at Yarl's Wood Removal Centre on 14 and 15 February 2003.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In a Statement on 25 February following the disturbance at Yarl's Wood removal centre on 14 and 15 February, the Home Secretary indicated that Stephen Moore, a member of the Prison Service, would conduct an over-arching investigation of the events. He has made significant progress with this investigation, but it cannot be completed until any associated court proceedings have concluded. The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, Stephen Shaw, has provided an independent overview of the work done so far.
	In view of the interest which has been shown in the events at Yarl's Wood, we have concluded that it would be preferable for the outcome of the investigation to be fully independent, and have therefore asked Stephen Shaw to take overall responsibility for the investigation (with the same terms of reference) and bring it to a conclusion. He will submit his report to the head of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in due course. We are grateful to Mr Moore for his important contribution to the investigation thus far.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Annual Report

Lord Sewel: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they are publishing the first annual report of the appointed person under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We are pleased to announce that the first annual report of the appointed person under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 has been laid before Parliament. The appointed person is an independent person who scrutinises the use of the new search power introduced to support the scheme to seize and forfeit criminal cash.
	The report gives the appointed person's opinion as to the circumstances and manner in which the search powers conferred by the Act are being exercised. We are pleased that the appointed person, Andrew Clarke, has expressed satisfaction at the operation of the search power in its first three months.
	Over £12.5 million had been seized under the scheme by the end of March. While most of the cash was discovered when police and customs officers were conducting searches under other legislation, it is significant and very good news that over £2 million was found and seized as a direct result of this new search power. The power is a welcome addition in the fight against crime and the report shows that its operation has been, and will continue to be, closely monitored.

Private Sector Landlords

Baroness Golding: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish details of the pilot projects announced in the Sustainable Communities plan to tackle problems associated with private sector landlords in areas of low housing demand.

Lord Rooker: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is allocating £2 million to help tackle private rented sector problems in areas of low housing demand. Up to £180,000 per year for the next two years will be provided to each of five areas: Stoke-on-Trent, Hartlepool, Bolton, and groups of authorities in West Yorkshire and East Lancashire.
	The money will help them to test how they can make best use of the full range of existing powers in their areas of special social need, and to gather good practice to support other local authorities with similar problems, pending the Housing Bill's proposed introduction of selective landlord licensing. The authorities in Gateshead and Salford will be working alongside this initiative.
	The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is allocating funds from the £2 million for dissemination purposes, to ensure that lessons learnt are spread to all authorities who wish to benefit.

Environment Agency: Proposed Development at Peasmarsh

Lord Lucas: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	With reference to the proposed development on land adjacent to the otter channel, Wittersham Road, Peasmarsh, described in planning application RR/2003/1208:
	(a) what was and is the financial relationship between the Environment Agency and any of its staff and the proposer of the above development; what checks the Environment Agency has made as to the proposer's probity and criminal record;
	(b) why the Environment Agency commenced work on the proposed development before any planning application had been made;
	(c) what benefits to the local environment the Environment Agency believed would accrue from the creation in that location of fishing lakes and wildfowl shooting facilities, and the installation of a caravan;
	(d) what benefits to floodplain management and capacity would accrue from the creation of bunded fishing lakes; and
	(e) what is the current attitude of the Environment Agency to the proposed development.

Lord Whitty: The proposed development is the construction of a fishing lake near the River Rother, north of Rye in Sussex. The landowner acquired the site last autumn with the intention of creating a commercial fishing lake. He approached the Environment Agency's local emergency work force office as he wished to benefit from an arrangement whereby the agency and its predecessors obtain clay wherever possible for repairing the river flood defences.
	Local agency staff stripped topsoil as a preliminary to excavating clay from the site, but withdrew immediately when it became apparent there was no planning permission for the excavation and prior to any material leaving the site. No other works were carried out by the agency. The agency is liaising with Rother District Council and is actively reviewing its procedures for the local acquisition of flood defence material.
	In answer to the specific points raised:
	(a) There is no financial arrangement between the Environment Agency and any of its staff and the proposer of the proposed fishing lake nor has there ever been. Where the Environment Agency intends to take adjacent earth material for the repair or improvement of a river embankment, it does not consider checks on the probity or criminal record of the developer to be necessary or appropriate.
	(b) The agency understood that planning permission had been obtained by the owner and ceased work on the topsoil scrape as soon as it was ascertained that this was not the case.
	(c) The agency believed that there would be a small increase in flood storage capacity. Planning application RR/2003/1208 was for the siting of a caravan only. The agency objected to this on flood risk grounds, but withdrew the objection if (as the owner stated) the caravan would only be occupied during June, July and August which is outside the months of high flood risk.
	(d) The proposed fishing lake was not to be bunded and there would be a small increase in flood storage.
	(e) The agency will not be further involved in the proposed development from the point of view of flood defence works to the River Rother. The agency will liaise closely with the local planning authority regarding any future proposals for this site.

Housing Benefit: Sanctions

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether mental illness will be a defence against the imposition of housing benefit sanctions.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We are consulting on these measures and will consider responses to the consultation before setting out detailed proposals.

Prize Competitions: Review

Lord Hoyle: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking following the review of the law on prize competitions by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In May 2002 the Department for Culture, Media and Sport issued a consultation letter concerning the law on prize competitions and lotteries. This followed the report of the independent gambling review, chaired by Sir Alan Budd, which the department published in July 2001.
	The consultation document asked for replies by the end of August 2002. We received 70 responses, and have been considering them carefully.
	The Government are clear that lotteries will continue to be the preserve of good causes only. There should be no commercial, for-profit lotteries. The law should provide for a clear and enforceable distinction between lotteries and prize competitions, and the Government intend that the overall Bill on gambling which they propose should achieve that.
	The Bill will remove the restrictions on prize competitions in Section 14 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. Under the Bill, prize competitions will be distinguishable from lotteries in that either they require a degree of skill, or they have a clear and open free entry route. Competitions based on forecasting will be regulated as betting. Subject to any requirements arising from the European regulation on sales promotions, which is currently under discussion, the Bill will also provide for promotional prize draws.
	The Bill will act against so-called "chain gifting" schemes such as "Women Empowering Women".
	We have made available a full statement of the conclusions which the Government have reached about these issues. We have sent this to all respondents to our consultation exercise and placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses. The statement is also available on the DCMS website on www.culture.gov.uk.

UK and European Parliaments: Costs

Viscount Tenby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the annual cost of maintaining the European Parliament, the House of Commons and House of Lords, including:
	(a) salaries, pensions, travelling allowances, secretarial expenses for Members;
	(b) salaries, allowances and pensions and other costs of supporting staff;
	(c) accommodation, including rent, operating costs and security; and
	(d) all other administrative costs such as stationery, office equipment, publications, payments to parliamentary bodies and other relevant outgoings; and
	What is the per capita cost per Member of:
	(a) the European Parliament;
	(b) the House of Commons; and
	(c) the House of Lords for 2002–03 and the previous four years; and
	What was the number of sitting days of:
	(a) the European Parliament;
	(b) the House of Commons; and
	(c) the House of Lords
	for 2002–03 and the previous four years.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Precise comparisons between the cost of the European Parliament and the Houses of Parliament are difficult. The latest information is as follows. The total costs and per capita costs for the House of Lords for 2001–02, given in my reply of 21 June 2002 (WA 109), have been slightly amended.
	
		Total Costs (£ million)
		
			  1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 
			 European Parliament(1) 712.0 610.0 597.0 614.2 568.7 
			 of which UK cost is 98.9 102.7 90.1 61.0 80.4 
			 House of Commons(7) 259.7 263.7 266.9 253.7 269.3 
			 House of Lords(7) 43.3 45.3 45.7 57.4 57.6 
		
	
	
		Per Capita Costs per member (£000)
		
			  1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 
			 European Parliament(3) 1,137 974 954 981 908 
			 House of Commons(4 and 7) 394 400 405 385 409 
			 House of Lords(2 and 7) 38 37 67 81 83 
		
	
	
		Number of sitting days
		
			  1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 
			 European Parliament(5) 55 60 156 138 141 
			 House of Commons(6) 157 157 159 143 162 
			 House of Lords 160 158 168 134 160 
		
	
	Notes:
	(1) Based on calendar years and average £/ecu or exchange rate for the relevant year. The cost to the UK is derived from the UK's financing share after abatement.
	(2) Per capita cost based on the number of Peers eligible to sit in the House of Lords at the beginning of each year. The number of peers has reduced significantly since the House of Lords Act 1999 when 655 hereditary Peers ceased to be Members from November 1999.
	(3) Per capita cost based on 626 seats in the European Parliament.
	(4) Per capita cost based on an assumption of 659 Members.
	(5) In 2002–03 the number of sitting days was 141. This includes plenary sessions as well as part-plenaries, committee days and political group days in Brussels. In addition there were 13 constituency days.
	(6) In 2002–03 the number of sitting days for the House of Commons was 257 including sitting days in Westminster Hall.
	(7) The 2002–03 figures are based on provisional outturns.

Cruise Liner Terminals

Lord Fearn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any new terminals for cruise liners are planned within the next five years in England.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Proposals to create cruise liner terminals are primarily matters for the private sector companies involved and we would only be formally aware of them if our statutory consent was required. At present we have been given notice of one such application, at Liverpool.

Rail Passenger Demand Forecasting

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will place in the Library of the House a copy of the Rail Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook, published by the Association of Train Operating Companies.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook contains commercially sensitive information, and holders are contractually obliged not to supply it to third parties, so a copy cannot be placed in the Library.

Drivers: Defective Eyesight

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will itemise and quantify the "cost and intrusion" mentioned by the Lord McIntosh of Haringey in Grand Committee on the Railways and Transport Safety Bill on 5 June (Official Report, col. GC 288) in connection with amendments about driving with uncorrected defective eyesight.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The "cost and intrusion" mentioned by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey in Grand Committee on the Railways and Transport Safety Bill on 5 June cannot, of course, be itemised and quantified precisely at this stage. However, in terms of costs, if the amendments in relation to driving with uncorrected defective eyesight which were debated were to be accepted, drivers would be faced with bills for regular vision tests (the cost of these varies across the UK between £10 and £20) and with having to purchase two new pairs of spectacles or lenses whenever their prescription changed. The requirement for regular eyesight testing would generate a significant number of additional transactions at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and, given that the driver licensing system is required to be self-financing, the considerable cost involved in processing these would have to be met by all licence holders in higher licence application fees. The "intrusion" which my noble friend Lord McIntosh spoke of referred to the inconvenience that would be caused to the majority of drivers, who do not have defective eyesight and who would presumably be compelled to carry documentation confirming this.

Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	To what extent the rural bus service grant is meeting its aims.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Rural bus subsidy grant is fulfilling its primary purpose of improving access to services and facilities for those living in rural areas. Local authorities are supporting 1,900 new and improved rural bus services by means of the grant. About 21 million passenger journeys were made on those services in 2001–02. The grant has formed an important part of a package of support for rural transport which also includes support for projects under the Department for Transport's Rural Bus Challenge competition and the Countryside Agency's rural transport partnership and parish transport grant schemes.
	The 2003 Budget Report announced that rural bus subsidy grant would be continued until 2005–06 with some modifications, including its extension to a wider range of demand responsive services.